1 Jul 1996 : Column: 261
Written Answers to Questions
Monday 1 July 1996
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Performance Assessment
Mr. Spearing: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, to what extent the Commission has (a) encouraged and (b) permitted competitive performance assessment (i) within Departments of the House and (ii) between their respective employees. [34670]
Mr. Beith: (a) Performance-related pay was introduced several years ago for staff in the non-industrial grades in the civil service and the Commission approved the introduction of similar arrangements for appropriate groups of staff in the House in order to keep "broadly in line" with the civil service as required by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.
(b) Performance pay in the House takes two different forms, depending upon the grade of the post. Competitive performance assessment exists for staff in grade 7 and above. Pay increase are dependent upon the box marks awarded in the staff annual report and the competitive element arises because the performance awards are paid from a performance budget, usually equal to 2 per cent. of the pay bill. For staff in grade 8 and below, the competitive element does not exist because performance awards, again dependent upon annual report box marks, are made in accordance with a progression chart without regard to a predetermined budget.
(i) The performance pay budgets are set on a House-wide basis for each of the grades at grade 7 and above, rather than by Department. The element of competition is therefore House-wide.
(ii) There is competition between individual members of staff at a particular grade level, at grade 7 and above.
Mr. Purchase:
To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when he expects the Committee to conclude its inquiry into all-party and parliamentary groups; and if he will make a statement. [35212]
Mr. Michael J. Martin:
I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend that at its meeting on 18 June, the Administration Committee agreed its report on all-party and parliamentary groups. The Committee makes several recommendations which, if approved by the House, would mean that the current written undertaking given by such groups seeking registration would be amended significantly to remove any existing imprecisions, and to be otherwise tightened up. Hon. Members may obtain copies of the report, HC (1995-96)494, from the Vote Office.
1 Jul 1996 : Column: 262
Mr. Gordon Prentice:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the take-up and effectiveness of launch aid; and if he will make a statement. [34998]
Mr. Eggar:
My Department already reviews regularly the returns from previous launch aid contracts.
Mr. Randall:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the research projects in Britain which have been financed in whole or in part by the European Union's third research framework programme. [34948]
Mr. Ian Taylor:
Full information on research projects funded in individual member states by the European Union's third framework programme for research and technological development, which ran from 1990 to 1994, is held only by the European Commission. It is not distributed to member states. UK researchers have, however, participated vigorously in the EU's framework programmes. Commission statistics show that 2,337 UK research teams participated in projects funded under the third framework--more than in any other member state. The indications are that UK researchers are continuing to participate strongly in the fourth framework programme, which runs from 1994 to 1998.
Mr. Charles Kennedy:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress in respect of the Barmac N166 site objective 1 application. [34833]
Mr. Eggar:
The approval of the European Commission is required under the terms of the seventh shipbuilding directive for public investment in Barmac's project as presently constituted.
Since the end of February, there have been a number of discussions and meetings between the company, officials of the Scottish Office and those of my shipbuilding unit and oil and gas project supplies office. An informal meeting was held on 13 June between those DTI officials and those of the European Commission's directorate general IV responsible for interpreting and enforcing the seventh shipbuilding directive, at which the Commission asked for clarification of certain issues before approval of the grant could be considered.
A further meeting was held between the company and my officials on 24 June to review the progress of its application, the information requested by the Commission and the options open to Barmac.
Mr. Merchant:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions were taken at the EU ministerial Council on the internal market on 28 May; and what matters were voted upon. [35113]
1 Jul 1996 : Column: 263
Mr. Oppenheim:
The right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the deputy UK permanent representative and I represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 28 May.
The Council reached common position by qualified majority voting on the sweeteners directive--Germany and Sweden opposed. The Council also reached unanimous political agreement on the common position on the directive on temporary authorisations for foodstuffs. Common positions on comparative and misleading advertising, exchange of information on measuring air pollution, monitoring of waste and protection of passengers in frontal collisions were agreed by A point procedure.
In accordance with UK non-co-operation in EU business, we blocked four measures requiring unanimity: two Council resolutions--administrative co-operation and legislative simplification in the internal market; a set of Council conclusions, accounting strategy; and an A point, Council decision on implementation of a Community action programme to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry.
Mr. Steen:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated saving to business from the Deregulation (Weights and Measures) Order 1996. [34678]
Mr. John M. Taylor:
The draft order contains three proposals to reduce the burdens on business:
Mr. Clapham:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment the Clifford Chance report on nuclear privatisations made of the number of workers likely to pursue damages claims for radiation-induced illness in the years (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; and what was the estimated cost of meeting these claims. [34327]
Mr. Eggar
[holding answer 27 June 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him during the debate on 18 June, Official Report, column 780.
It is inevitable that some of those affected by radiation-induced illnesses, such as cancer, will work in the nuclear industry, but it is scientifically impossible to distinguish between a radiation induced cancer and a naturally occurring one.
1 Jul 1996 : Column: 264
Mr. Harvey:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the constituencies he has visited in the past three months on official business and the constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [34356]
Mr. Gummer:
During the past three months, I have visited:
The total savings will depend on how many businesses take up these options. Assuming take-up by about half of the businesses that already have equipment verified, it is estimated that businesses might save £4.3 million per annum in fees formerly paid to trading standards officers, to which can be added savings in businesses' indirect costs less the cost of operating one or other of the new options.
verification of weighing or measuring equipment by
manufacturers and others;
third party testing of equipment;
pre-test stamping of equipment.
I have a number of visits planned over the next three months, but it is not my policy to make public details of my forward diary.
Battersea
Brighton, Pavilion
Ipswich
Coventry, South-East
Holborn and St. Pancras
Dorset, West
Guildford
Spelthorne
Rutland and Melton
Sheffield, Attercliffe
Barnsley, East
Doncaster, Central
Brentford and Isleworth
Twickenham
Northavon
Milton Keynes--North-East
Birmingham--Selly Oak
Brighton, Kempton
Hove
Braintree
Ludlow
City of London and Westminster
Cambridge
Chichester
Rushcliffe
Sheffield, Central
Sheffield, Brightside
Don Valley
Kensington
Suffolk, Central
Salisbury
Milton Keynes, South-West
Birmingham, Small Heath
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |